Yes, but do not limit your participation to the public comment forum.
They have an easier time ignoring that, since it is a relatively
anonymous method of input with no screening whatsoever.
Participation in the DNSO GA which adds more voice to the concerns
there makes the positions a lot harder to discount. It also ruins any
claim they could possibly try to make later if they adopt the new
contract that it was done with the widespread "consensus" that ICANN
is supposed to be "coordinating" in its policy decisions.
Of course, we all know that ICANN doesn't really act in a bottom-up
consensus method, but if they enact the new contract in the face of a
nearly uniform opposition from all of the constituencies (except the
one of which Verisign is the only member), from the DNSO Names
Council, and the DNSO GA, it forces this issue out into the open the
next time they get called to testify before Congress and continue to
justify their contract with the DoC.
Monday, March 19, 2001, 11:48:23 AM, Biz-Lists wrote:
> I would like to add that the place to add your public comment is at:
> http://forum.icann.org/nsi2001/
> You need to register to post to the forum.
> cjs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 12:54 AM
> Subject: If anyone is interested and wants to have input
> : The new ICANN-Verisign deal, which effectively exempts Verisign from
> : having to spin off the NSI Registrar and gives them a presumptive
> : right to .com in perpetuity as well as other benefits, is currently
> : being discussed on the DNSO GA list.
> :
> : The ICANN Board has asked the DNSO GA, Names Council, and
> : Constituencies, as well as the internet public, to provide feedback on
> : the proposed new contract before the deadline for approving it.
> :
> : So far there appears to be a broad consensus on the DNSO General
> : Assembly that the new contract should be rejected, and the current
> : status quo contract should remain in effect.
> :
> : Regardless of your position on this issue, you should join and make
> : your voice heard, because this decision will have an impact on all of
> : us, and on the domain market as a whole.
> :
> : Some of the current reasons for the massive opposition to this new
> : contract are documented at:
> : http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01018.html
> :
> : While I am in agreement with that post, if there was a similar post
> : showing reasons why the new contract should be approved, I would post
> : it here also, however none of those who have publicly stated support
> : for that contract have been willing or able to come up with any
> : substantive position to support it.
> :
> : This issue could be critical to the DNSO and the DNSO General
> : Assembly, because it goes right to the heart of how ICANN is supposed
> : to work, and if the ICANN board ignores the broad consensus coming out
> : of the DNSO, then it can no longer hold on to the public illusion of
> : being a "bottom up consensus" organization.
> :
> : But it can only do that if more than the "usual suspects" are a part
> : of the process.
> :
> : If you have an opinion on whether Verisign/NSI should be permitted to
> : not divest themselves of their Registrar business as they previously
> : agreed to, and should hold a presumptive right to the .com registry in
> : perpetuity, then you need to add your voice to those who are already
> : actively working on this issue.
> :
> : This is probably more a policy issue, so if you have any questions,
> : feel free to email me offlist, or take this to the policy list. With
> : all the Verisign/NSI sentiment this list has seen expressed, though, I
> : thought this issue should be brought to everyone.
> :
> : Thank you for letting me waste 5 minutes of your time with this.
> :
> : --
> : Best regards,
> : William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :
> :
> :
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
